ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054728
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gintare Skuzinskaite | Lidl Ireland Gmbh |
Representatives |
| Scott Jevons Employee Relations Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00066554-001 | 09/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The Complainant’s complaint form and correspondence included a much wider range of issues than those encompassed by the Organisation of Working Time Act and at the start of the hearing the Complainant outlined that her complaint centred around the hours offered to her on her return to work in April 2024. I asked her to identify which legislation was relevant to that and she was unable to do so. The Complainant did then request a postponement to seek legal advice. The Respondent objected to this on the basis that they had raised these issues in their submissions which had been sent to the Complainant well in advance of the hearing and as such she on notice of but had failed to address these issues ahead of the hearing. Both parties confirmed that the Complainant was already in receipt of legal advice.
In the circumstances I refused the postponement and continued to hear the case under the above act.
Background:
The Complainant is an employee of the Respondent retailer.
In April 2024 she returned to work following a period of extended sick leave. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation with the assistance of a translator. The Complainant returned to work after engaging with the area manager regarding her existing workplace grievances. She returned to work on the 22nd of April 2024 but discovered she was only rostered for 10 hours a week. The Complainant was then placed on sick leave compulsorily for two weeks. She returned to work again but was given a warning over a misunderstanding about store keys for which she wasn’t to blame. She went on sick leave again and has not returned to work since. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent respectfully submits that the complaint is misconceived. They deny breaching the Complainant’s employment rights. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant has not made out a complaint related to any provision of the Organisation of Working Time Act. In the circumstances the complaint must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 10th March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|